Here, too, the requirement to maintain the security deposit in a New York branch is a technical statutory violation that, like failure to provide notice and unlike commingling, is not a fiduciary violation. Hence, under the logic of Purfield, with which the court agrees, Royal's violation does not result in forfeiture.
Finally, the court declines to impose sanctions. While the complaint's allegations might have been pleaded more clearly and precisely, the court does not find that Urban's allegations justify sanctions. Urban, at the very least, has pleaded a statutory violation, albeit one that does not afford it relief under these circumstances. Accordingly, it is ordered that the motion by defendant Royal Wine Corporation to dismiss the complaint is granted, the motion for sanctions is denied, and the Clerk is{**53 Misc 3d at 465} directed to enter judgment, in favor of said defendant and against plaintiff Urban Soccer Inc., dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
Footnotes
Footnote 1:References to "Doc No." followed by a number refer to documents filed in this action in the New York State Courts Electronic Filing system.
Footnote 2:The reason for the supplemental submissions is discussed herein.
Footnote 3:The parties agree that executed versions of the sublease were not exchanged until June 11, 2015. (See Doc No. 13 at 8.) The lease between Royal and the City is exhibit C to the sublease. (See Doc No. 8 at 41.)
Footnote 4:It should be noted that section 21.11 of the sublease states that Urban's guarantor, François Chateau, is an attorney, and that he personally negotiated the terms of the sublease. (See Doc No. 8 at 29.)